Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Guess who's union busting;

United Nations workers spend their time on the front lines of the
global struggle for human rights, but now they are battling for rights
in their own workplace. The UN has come under fire for union-busting,
and the labor standoff could undermine its ability to uphold the rights
of others around the globe.
All summer, the United Nations' staff unions have been clashing with management over
a new policy aimed at curtailing the staff’s collective bargaining
rights. The Staff Coordinating Council, the union leading the opposition campaign,
contends that the loss of this negotiating power, enacted by
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, would deal an unprecedented blow to the
union’s power to negotiate contracts and working conditions.
The dismantling of union power, in turn, may signal a gradual shift
away from democracy and toward neoliberalism throughout the institution
often hailed as the world's watchdog.

Monday, September 16, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, WHO buries a
report, everyone wants to speak on Wednesday, Syria remains in Barack's
cross-hairs, and more.

Today had significance with regards to recent history. Eric Boehlert (Huffington Post) informs, "Ten years ago this week, and six months after the United States launched
a preemptive invasion of Iraq as part of the larger War on Terror,
President Bush publicly conceded
the administration had 'no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved
with' the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States."
History's strongest gift to the present is to serve as an instructive
guide of sorts. Around the world, people feel they are seeing history
attempt to repeat with Iraq standing in for Syria and Barack standing in
for Bully Boy Bush. Richard Cohen (New York Daily News) observes:

If life were a movie, President Obama would look into the mirror and see George W. Bush.
He would rub the mirror and Bush would still be there, giving him that
galling smirk. Obama would quickly understand: Here he is, like the
predecessor he so (rightly) loathed, metaphorically trudging the vast
Arabian desert, searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction.Already, the Syrian debacle has taken on aspects of Iraq. Bashar Assad’s
chemical weapons are, as we once thought about Saddam Hussein’s, on the
move. “Today, we have information that the regime began to move
chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq,” Gen.
Salim Idriss, the opposition’s military leader, told CNN . “The regime
is behaving like Saddam Hussein,” he later added.

We'll return to the topic of Syria later in the snapshot. The US
government has succeeded in burying a report on the true costs of war.
The report in question was to be published by the World Health
Organization and the study was undertaken by WHO and the Iraqi
government in response to the huge number of birth defects now appearing
in Iraq.

My name is Dr
Samira Alaani and I am a pediatrician working in Fallujah General
Hospital. In the years since US forces attacked our city my colleagues
and I have recorded a horrifying increase in the numbers of babies born
with congenital defects: spina bifida, heart abnormalities and defects
that I do not even have a name for. Many do not survive. For those that
do, we care for them as best we can with the limited resources we have.I have worked in Fallujah as a Pediatrician since 1997 but began to
notice something was wrong in 2006 and began logging the cases; we have
determined that 144 babies are now born with a deformity for every 1000
live births. We
believe it has to be related to contamination caused by the fighting in
our city, even now, nearly 10 years later. It is not unique to
Fallujah; hospitals throughout the Anbar Governorate and many other
regions of Iraq are recording increases. Every day I see the strain this
fear puts on expectant mothers and their families. The first question I
am asked when a child is born is not ‘is it a boy or a girl?’ but ‘is
my child healthy?’

When
I heard that the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the World Health
Organization (WHO) were going to carry out research I finally felt a
glimmer of hope. I knew it would only confirm what we already
knew; that there had been a rise in birth defects, but I saw it as a
stepping stone to finally spur Iraq and the international community into
action.

The research is now complete and we were
promised that it would be published at the beginning of 2013, yet six
months later the WHO has announced more delays. We worry that
this is now politics, not science. We have already waited years for the
truth and my patients cannot wait any longer. The WHO has
another option. The data should be published in an open access journal
for independent peer review. The process would be fast, rigorous and
transparent.My patients need to know the truth, they need to know why
they miscarried, they need to know why their babies are so ill but, most
importantly, they need to know that something is being done about
it. The Iraqi Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization need
to release this data and give us answers.Please sign this petition and show that the rest of the world has not forgotten about the people of Iraq.

A frequently cited epidemiological study titled Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009 involved a door-to-door survey of more than 700 Fallujah households.The research team interviewed Fallujans about abnormally high rates of cancer and birth defects.One of the authors of the study, Chemist Chris Busby, said that the Fallujah health crisis represented "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied".

A short and anonymous report just appeared on the World Health Organization (WHO) website. It is titled "Summary of prevalence of reported congenital birth defects in 18 selected districts in Iraq."
Previously, this report was referred to on the WHO website as a "joint
study" with the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH) which began in May-June
2012. It was to examine the prevalence of congenital birth defects in a
number of geographically dispersed areas of Iraq which were exposed to
bombardment or heavy fighting, or were unexposed.

This
joint investigation was initiated following widespread public alarm
over unusual increases in poor reproductive and birth outcomes in Iraq
after the US-led invasion. Across Iraq, increasing numbers of birth
defects appear to be surfacing, including in Mosul, Al-Ramadi, Najaf, Fallujah, Basra, Hawijah, and Baghdad. In some provinces, cancers also are rising. Sterility, repeated miscarriages, stillbirths and severe birth defects - some not found in any medical books - are reported widely.

This explains why many public health scientists awaited the release of the WHO/MoH report on birth defects in Iraq.

Another unusual and outrageous feature of this report
is its anonymity. No author(s) are listed or identified. An anonymous
report is rarely seen in epidemiological reporting given the multiple
questions that often arise when interested readers examine complicated
study designs, large data sets, and multiple analysis. Identification of
corresponding authors is critical for the transparency and clarity of
any report. Without author names and affiliations, without identified
offices in the MoH, the reader must ask, who is responsible to answer
for this report? To whom must the public direct their questions and
concerns about this report?

The WHO has simultaneously broadcasted and vanished from this report.

The described methods of this report are not without
fatal shortcomings. First and foremost, an epidemiologic study must
clearly show that individuals who were selected for the study accurately
represent the population of interest. To that end, methods must offer
clear and justifiable criteria for the inclusion of individuals in the
study, and for their exclusion from the study.

The methodology section of this report simply declares
that the selection criteria were "determined by the Ministry of Health".
The critical questions of "on what basis" and "why" remain unanswered.
Selection criteria have major and critical influences on an
epidemiological investigation and are universally expected to be fully
discussed, even in short reports.

We cannot tell whether selection bias, a common problem
in epidemiological studies, has occurred here. If it has, then the
study is fully discredited. Based on information available in this
report, we cannot rule out selection bias issues. The undisclosed
criteria for recruitment of participants appears to have "included areas
that had and had not been exposed to bombardment or heavy fighting."

The maps and tables in the report do not indicate which
areas were exposed to bombardment or heavy fighting and which areas
were not. Another fatal shortcoming of the report is that the exposed
and unexposed populations remain unidentified throughout. How is a
comparison between two population's rates of "spontaneous abortions",
"stillbirths", or "congenital birth defects" possible if their exposure
status is never described?

What happened?

The US government went after WHO and it wasn't pretty. Nouri shared
their interest in killing the report. (He has remained silent on the
birth defects epidemic since he first became prime minister.) He bought
off the Ministry of Health which then demanded that WHO not list them
on the report. For a change, the head of the ministry is not accused of
lining their pockets. Instead, Majeed Hamadaminie Jamil is said to be
using the money to provide more clinics to in-need provinces.

The Kurdish Globe reminds
the UN's death toll for last month was 800 Iraqis killed and that 5,000
have been killed so far this year. Yesterday's violence claimed 67
lives according to Iraq Body Count which also notes 574 violent deaths for the month so far through yesterday.

While
the violence continues, journalists in Iraq face more problems and no
one seems to even notice. An except for Ayad Allawi, no one seems too
concerned.

The Tehran Times reports
that "another group" of the Ashraf community has been resettled to
Albania. They don't specify how many but note that Albania had already
taken in 159 members of the Ashraf community earlier. All Iraq News states 210 members were admitted to Albania.

Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to
Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp
Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US
invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations
with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the
residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that
US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person
under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the
Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush
administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on
the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush
administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they
would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp
repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later,
on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at
least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of
the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and
more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and
other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't
the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were
labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.
3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah
for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other
countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was
attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of
Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls
terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an
Iraqi official release." They were attacked again September 1st. Adam Schreck (AP) reported
that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf
residents. Shreck also noted when the last of the Ashraf residents left
Camp Ashraf this month.

US Senator Robert Menendez issued a statement
on the attack which included, "I hold the Iraqi government directly
responsible to protect the community, to investigate this matter
thoroughly, and to prosecute the perpetrators of this heinous act. I am
deeply concerned for the seven hostages who were taken during this
attack. The Iraqi government should act swiftly to determine their
whereabouts and ensure their safety. There is added urgency for the
global community, as well as for the United States, to help resettle
this community outside of Iraq, and end this cycle of ongoing terror
attacks." Seven Ashraf hostages? Nouri's government denied they existed
but they did and do. Last week, UNHCR issued the following statement:

These seven are all known by UNHCR to be asylum-seekers, and the agency
hopes to have an opportunity to interview them. In light of the
numerous and persistent reports over the past week that these
individuals may be at risk of forced return to Iran, UNHCR calls upon
the Government of Iraq to locate them, to ensure their physical
security, and to safeguard them against return to Iran against their
will.

According to the information received, on 1st September 2013 seven Iranian exiles, members of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI),
an Iranian opposition group, were abducted from Camp Ashraf during an
attack carried out by the Iraqi security forces, which also led to the
death of 52 people and several injured[1].
The seven residents are: Ms. Fatemeh Tahoori, Ms. Vajihe Karbalaey, Ms.
Mahnaz Azizi, Ms. Lila Nabahat, Ms. Zahra Ramezani, Ms. Fatema Sakhie
and Mr. Mohammad Ratebi. According to the same information received, on 12th September
2013, Mr. Kamel Amin, Deputy of the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights,
confirmed the arrest of seven members of the PMOI and announced that
they are in the custody of the security forces.OMCT
is gravely concerned about the fate and safety of Ms. Fatemeh Tahoori,
Ms. Vajihe Karbalaey, Ms. Mahnaz Azizi, Ms. Lila Nabahat, Ms. Zahra
Ramezani, Ms. Fatema Sakhie and Mr. Mohammad Ratebi. OMCT urges the
Iraqi authorities to immediately disclose their exact whereabouts and to
guarantee their physical and psychological integrity at all times, in
accordance with international human rights law.OMCT
fears that they may be forcibly returned to Iran, where they would be
at risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. OMCT recalls to the
Iraqi authorities the absolute prohibition of sending a person to
another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he
or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture and other forms
of ill-treatment or other serious human rights violations.OMCT
further urges the Iraqi authorities to immediately release them in the
absence of valid legal charges that are consistent with international
law and standards, or, if such charges exist, to bring them promptly
before an impartial, independent and competent tribunal and guarantee
their procedural rights at all times.Action requestedPlease write to the authorities in Iraq urging them to:i. Immediately
disclose the exact whereabouts of Ms. Fatemeh Tahoori, Ms. Vajihe
Karbalaey, Ms. Mahnaz Azizi, Ms. Lila Nabahat, Ms. Zahra Ramezani, Ms.
Fatema Sakhie and Mr. Mohammad Ratebi;ii. Guarantee,
in all circumstances, their physical and psychological
integrity, including by not forcibly returning them to Iran, where they
would be at risk of torture and other ill-treatment;iii. Order
their immediate release in the absence of valid legal charges that are
consistent with international law and standards, or, if such charges
exist, bring them promptly before an impartial, independent and
competent tribunal and guarantee their procedural rights at all times;iv. Guarantee unconditional access to all members of their family and their lawyers;v. Guarantee that they are examined by independent doctors and receive adequate medical care;i. Carry out a prompt, effective, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the
circumstances of these events, the results of which must be made
public, in order to bring those responsible before a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal and apply penal, civil and/or
administrative sanctions as provided by law;ii. Ensure
the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the
country in accordance with national laws and international human rights
standards.

Also planning to speak on Wednesday is Osama al-Nujaifi. NINA explains:Media Bureau of the Speaker of Parliament announced that Speaker
Usama
al-Nijaifi, plans to hold a press conference on Wednesday, Sep. 18, at
the Parliament building. [. . .] Political source sources said that in
the press conference, Nijaifi will talk about his visits to each of
Ankara and Tehran.

Did he really say that? In mid-August the Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki decided to start giving a weekly, televised
address to the nation. The idea is apparently modelled on the way the US
president works. And al-Maliki’s most recent speech was all about his
ideas to solve the Syrian crisis next door.

Al-Maliki’s initiative contained nine points. These
involved calling for an immediate ceasefire in all of the Syrian
territories as well as a halt to the supply of weapons and financial
means to parties fighting in Syria. Al-Maliki also called for continued
support of the United nations as it investigates the use of chemical
weapons in Syria and rejected the idea of any overt, foreign
interference in Syrian affairs.

Suffice to say, the initiative was roundly criticised by
both locals and external parties. That is, if anybody even paid any
attention to al-Maliki’s ideas – which are mostly considered completely
impossible because of the complexity and pitch of the Syrian conflict.
Even many Arabic-speaking television channels and commentators ignored
it.

A source from inside one of the European embassies in
Baghdad reported that his masters were not taking the suggested
initiative seriously. Apparently the head of the embassy was told to
procrastinate over a response.

And while Shalal Kado, a member of the Syrian Kurdish
council, thought the initiative was a nice idea, he told NIQASH that:
“everyone – the opposition, the Syrian government and all regional
actors – are really only waiting for the response of the US or Russia”.

Only Iraq’s other neighbours, the Iranians, said anything
nice about al-Maliki’s speech. Iranian media outlets praised al-Maliki’s
“noble ideas” and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif who arrived in Baghdad on Sunday
also seemed to support al-Maliki’s words, by making statements about
“joint concerns with our Iraqi brothers on war-waging in the region”.

Yes, we're back on Syria, Free Speech Radio News reported the latest today:Dorian Merina: The United Nations team investigating the alleged chemical weapons
attack that took place in a Damascus suburb last month released a
38-page report on their findings today. Investigators concluded that
chemical weapons were used on a relatively large scale in the August 21
attack against civilians, including children. The report cites
evidence of Sarin in blood and urine samples of survivors, on
surface-to-surface rockets and near the sites of the attacks.UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon spoke to reporters today after meeting in a closed session of the Security Council.UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: There must be accountability for the use of chemical weapons;
any use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere is a crime. But our
message today must be more than that: do not slaughter your people with
gas. There must be also no impunity for the crimes being committed
with conventional weapons.

Dorian Merina: Ban Ki Moon also expressed concerns about arms flowing into the
region as atrocities are committed by both sides. As fighting continued
on the ground in Syria, the head of the International Commission of
Inquiry Sergio Pinheiro addressed the UN Human Rights Council with
similar concerns. He said neither side was respecting the rules of
engagement during war.Sergio Pinheiro: Failure to bring about a settlement has allowed the conflict not
only to deepen in its intransigence but also to widen-- expanding to
new actors and to unimaginable crimes. Neither law nor decency has
restrained the behavior of the parties. Influential states have an
obligation to ensure that the parties to the conflict comply with the
laws of war.

Dorian Merina: Over the weekend, US and Russian negotiators reached an agreement on
chemical weapon disarmament by the Syrian Regime. And the UN said it
received documents from Syria on Saturday in its initial steps to join
the 1992 Chemical Weapons ban treaty. But despite the diplomatic
progress, Secretary of State John Kerry continued to warn of possible
military action. He spoke from Paris along with the French and British
foreign ministers.

Tomorrow afternoon, Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to give a
closed door briefing on Syria to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Manlio Dinucci (Workers World) notes, "The
hammering by politicians and the corporate media about chemical weapons
use in Syria, which, according to secret CIA “evidence” was used by
government forces, has generated the widespread false impression that it
is only Syria that now possesses such weapons and threatens the rest of
the world with them. That’s the power of the weapon of mass
distraction, which is able to focus public attention on a single point,
making everything else vanish." nefit. Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) reminds Barack hasn't tossed aside plans for war:

Anyone who thinks the US regime change operation in Syria is finished hasn’t
been keeping up with the news.
Yes, the President and his interventionist advisors – notably Secretary of
State John Kerry and US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power – have been rebuked
by Congress and the American people: there will be no "shock and awe"
over Damascus any time soon. The US military, for its part, has also signaled its displeasure at being asked to fight yet another futile Middle East war.
Yet that hardly means the War Party has given up: far from it.

MS. HARF: Onto the business of the day. I have a brief
statement at the top about an upcoming meeting Secretary Kerry will be
having, and then we can move on from there.

On Thursday, September 19th, Secretary Kerry will host
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi for a bilateral meeting and working
lunch as part of our regular consultations on a range of bilateral,
regional, and global issues. While this meeting has been planned for
some time, we do expect the Secretary and Foreign Minister to discuss
current issues such as the DPRK and Syria.

QUESTION: When you say Syria, will that include the shape of a possible UN resolution?

MS. HARF: I don’t have anything further on that. The
discussions are going on at the UN with our P-5 counterparts and with
other folks as well.Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can you tell us a little bit more about the six-month timeframe?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: How was that arrived at? And it seems sort of ambitious. Why do we have – why is it six months?

MS. HARF: Well, we clearly would not have agreed to a timeline
if we didn’t believe it was achievable. And you’re right; it is an
ambitious timeline, but we believe the situation is so serious that
action needs to be taken as swiftly as possible on an accelerated
timeline to destroy these weapons.What’s happening next, I think maybe I should say at the top is this
week a couple things will be happening, right at the beginning of the
timeline. The Syrian Government will have to, within the week, give a
list of their full chemical weapons stockpile, their full program to the
OPCW. Within the same timeframe, the U.S. and Russia will also be
submitting a request to the OPCW to expeditiously, on an accelerated
timeline, move forward with destruction of these weapons. The OPCW will
be making a decision on that request in the same timeframe as well.So while that’s all happening with the OPCW in The Hague, there’s a
UN process going on. I’m sure you all saw the UN report that was
released today. We’re in consultations with our colleagues on the
Security Council about a resolution and tabling text at the appropriate
point.So those are the next sort of parts of the timeframe. But you’re
right; there is a broader timeframe that is ambitious but we believe is
important to work towards because the situation is so serious.

QUESTION: Did somebody come up with that six months, or is it just arbitrary?

MS. HARF: Well, it was something that was agreed to between
the U.S. and the Russian delegations in Geneva. So it was part of the
discussions, the broad discussions about how to move forward with this
agreement.

QUESTION: On the list, how are we going to know that that is a complete list?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, I would say a couple things. Clearly,
this is going to be the first example of the intentions of the Syria
regime, how serious they are. So we hope that it will be a complete
listing of their --

QUESTION: How will we know?

MS. HARF: Well, we have an assessment of the Syrian regime’s
stockpile. We and the Russians agreed to an assessment of the size of
the Syrian regime’s stockpile. So we know what our information says
about that, and we will take a look at their submission when they
actually submit it to the OPCW.

QUESTION: But are you confident that your assessment is – captures the entire universe of Syrian chemical weapons?

MS. HARF: Well, we, as everyone knows, have ways to monitor
their chemical weapons stockpile, and we have an assessment that our
intelligence community has put together about the size and scale of the
weapons. We’ll take a look at what the Syrians come to us with.One part of the discussion in Geneva was exactly this: the
assessments. So we’ll look at what they put on the table and we will
continue working with them going forward. But I think a key point of the
agreement is to get inspectors on the ground as soon as possible.

QUESTION: I mean, the --

MS. HARF: So we have an assessment about the program. But what
we and the Russians agreed to was that inspectors needed to immediately
be allowed access on the ground to look at the scope of the program as
well.

QUESTION: The reason I asked the question --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- about whether you believed that your assessment or the intelligence community’s assessment is comprehensive --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- or captures everything is that it’s very hard to do that, as you well know --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- like with North Korea, and there was a long
debate over whether they had a uranium enrichment program and how ample
it was and so on. And if you’re not highly confident that you’ve
captured everything, is it not quite conceivable that Syria would keep
some chemical weapons hidden from you?

MS. HARF: Well, nobody’s debating whether they have a program,
so I think that’s a little different than the comparison you tried to
make there about whether a program existed or not. But setting that
aside, we do have an assessment, and the U.S. and Russia agreed that
they have a stockpile that includes chemical warfare agents. Taken
together, we’ve judged that this is approximately a thousand metric tons
of these agents and precursors.So we’re putting our list of the possible sites on paper. The Syrian
regime will be submitting a list as well. But one of the key parts of
this is to ensure that we have the full scope of the program and we can,
indeed, destroy all of it. That’s one of the challenges. But it’s an
important enough issue that we believe we have to take it on and accept
that challenge even though it’s going to be difficult.

The Green Party of Michigan (GPMI) is urging Michigan's two US Senators and 14 US Representatives to reject President Obama's call for authorization to make war on Syria (or war by any other name), and to instead support diplomatic and humanitarian approaches to the crisis there.

A statement adopted last week by GPMI's State Central Committee (SCC) starts by simply saying, "War or actions of war do not bring peace." It opposes the use of any weapon of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, and calls on every country that has such weapons to destroy them.

The statement calls the military attack still threatened by Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and other US officials "illegal under international law and counterproductive" -- and adds that it "could only make things worse" in Syria.

Syria does not need a "no fly" zone. It needs a "no weaponizing" zone. The White House and its allies need to stop arming one side of a civil war, and to persuade Russia to stop arming the other. Further escalating the violence will result in nothing that could outweigh the damage of that violence.

Individual Michigan Greens have sent the statement -- along with their own comments on the situation -- to their US Representatives and to Senators Levin and Stabenow. The positions of Michigan's House delegation are a mixed bag, although both Senators have made public statements in favor of military attacks.

For Tom Mair of the Traverse Bay Watershed Greens, "The No. 1 concern brought on by the Syrian situation is the use of chemical weapons. Every country that has chemical weapons needs to destroy theirs safely and that includes Syria and the rebels in Syria should they have any chemical weapons.

"An attack by the US on Syria will not change the use of chemical weapons. In fact, the Cruise missiles are said to have depleted uranium on their warheads and on impact produce a fine dust that spreads depleted uranium in the air and on the land. Depleted uranium is a deadly chemical," Mair points out.

Linda Cree of the North Country Greens, a member of the Green Party's National Committee, adds: "It makes no sense to bomb innocent Syrians to send a message that we're opposed to Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons.

"To send Cruise missiles into Syria is only to add to the crimes against humanity which most of the world sees us committing in our drone attacks on Pakistan and other nations in the Middle East."

Kevin Graves, a candidate for GPMI's nomination for governor in 2014, argues for a more positive approach in Syria -- starting with "respectful cooperation of the major powers for judicious and peaceful decisions made by the United Nations." Even when the UN sends military forces into a situation, he observes, they are known as "peacekeepers" -- and building and keeping peace are what Syria needs.

"Diplomacy is moving forward, however unintentionally stimulated by remarks from Secretary of State Kerry which his own department labeled purely rhetorical," adds GPMI Platform Committee chair John Anthony La Pietra of Marshall. "Now is the time to concentrate on getting weapons out of Syria -- and humanitarian aid into the country and surrounding areas impacted by the millions of refugees from the crisis."

Bill Opalicky, the 2012 Green candidate for Michigan's 2nd Congressional District seat, points out that taking the US into war unilaterally would be against the Constitution -- and justify impeaching Obama. "As Martin Luther King noted in a similar context, silence would be a betrayal."

La Pietra agrees. "Tuesday is Constitution Day -- an appropriate time for Congress to take notice of President Obama's continued insistence that he has a unilateral option to attack Syria regardless of what the UN does, or how Congress votes.

"And White House speechifying about the US as enforcer of international law cannot hide the fact that a US attack on Syria, unprovoked by an attack or threat from Syria, would be war as an instrument of policy. That is banned by many international agreements, including the Kellogg-Briand Treaty -- not only signed by the US but co-authored by its then-Secretary of State."

Updated information on the positions taken in public statements by Michigan's US Senators and Representatives on the question of authorizing a US military attack on Syria can be found at

GPMI was formed in 1987 to address environmentalissues in Michigan politics. Greens are organizedin all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Eachstate Green Party sets its own goals and creates itsown structure, but US Greens agree on Ten Key Values:

About Me

I'm a black working mother. I love to laugh and between work and raising kids, I need a good laugh. I'm also a community member of The Common Ills. Shout outs to any Common Ills community members stopping by. Big shout out to C.I. for all the help getting this started. I am not married to Thomas Friedman, credit me with better taste, please. This site is a parody.